downtonabbeyfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:What is canon and good citations/references
This is a topic clearly in dispute, but it shouldn't be. Let me lay out what I think is canon and what a valid type of citation/reference should be (Citation from an original source.). ;Canon Information from original sources. This includes the transcripts of the Downton Abbey show, statements by creative people involved (writers, directors, etc.), info from the official ITV web pages, and journalistic articles written about or non-fiction works about Downton Abbey. :;What is not canon? :Information derived from original sources. Statements by parties not directly involved in the show who are not journalists or non-fiction authors. Bloggers interpreting info from original sources. Opinions and speculations from this wiki. ;Citation/reference A link or bibliographic reference to an original source, preferably with the exact quote. It can be a youtube video of the show or something like that, but the cited info must quotes must be in the video. Although 3rd party transcript web sites are not technically original sources, they can also be used, but should be considered suspect unless a true original source accompanies them. For example, you could link to a transcript web site and then have another reference to a youtube video that confirms the transcript, but doesn't specifically say if everything matches perfectly as long as the relevant info or quote in the transcript matches the original source. If a journalist or non-fiction writer's statement or reproduction of a quote is used, we will trust they have done their research and have maintained ethical standards. As with any incorrect reference, the cite should be removed if it turns out the person is wrong. A journalist or non-fiction writer who is found to be repeatedly incorrect may require us to make a list of unreliable sources. Hopefully not. :;What is not a valid citation/reference? :Anything derived from original sources with a calculation, estimation, presumption, or speculation. If you think it is correct, but you don't know, then it is not valid. Just because someone agrees with your reasoning, doesn't make it valid. Only original sources can confer validity. Discuss. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 1 Nov 2012 3:40 PM Pacific I agree with this, it seems like a well worded definition to me. Also, I saw somewhere else a suggestion of adding a 'notes' or 'speculation' section to pages (I hope I'm understanding this correctly!) and I think that's a very good idea. That way people who enjoy that type of discussion/information don't have to feel as if they're being excluded and the everyday reader who doesn't get involved in this type of 'behind the scenes' discussion of what is and isn't canon information will know that there's a difference between the two types of information. Speculation will still be able to be included but it will be clear that it isn't - strictly speaking - backed up by canon. --Bluebellanon (talk) 12:22, November 6, 2012 (UTC) I agree with this, though I will state that it's ONLY in dispute BECAUSE of CestWhat's actions in originally removing the information that started the edit war, but Bluebellanon is right - this is a well worded definition: maybe it could be included on the first page so people can see it when they first arrive?; the idea of a 'notes' section makes me happy - as it means CestWhat has no grounds in removing my edits from the page, just to a new section and it will prevent edit wars. Having a 'behind the scenes', 'notes' or 'speculation' page allows other people, who are not obssessed with details, to have valid discussion and I do believe that a talk page should be made for each of the characters instead of comments so that the discussions with people can be private. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:35, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :This is going alot better than I expected. If we get agreement from a few more users (hopefully the most active ones) we can make it policy. I will make another forum post detailing my ideas for things like a "Behind the scenes", "Notes", and "Speculation" sections. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 7 Nov 2012 11:33 AM Pacific :::I'm actually not sure what we are discussing here. Pages/Information should always be referenced. Notes and Behind the Scenes are always a good idea too. Just let me know what the dispute was originally so that I can properly give my thoughts. 15:09, June 8, 2013 (UTC) Question on script book You're right that this is badly needed. I do have a question, though. There's a season 1 script book set to come out in December and a season 2 script book is supposed to come out as well. Would those be considered valid sources, especially since they're likely to include deleted scenes that weren't seen onscreen? Dragonrider2 (talk) 23:52, November 1, 2012 (UTC) :If deleted scenes don't conflict with canon from scenes that made the cut, they would likely be considered canon. At least that's my take. Canon for fictional works is more of what a community agrees are canon and agrees the rules are for establishing canon. The creator, of course, trumps the community, but minus direct quotes from the creator, the community must decide. :This forum discussion is my attempt to start a set of rules for determining canon according to the community. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 5 Nov 2012 2:03 PM Pacific :I hope it's okay that I add my opinion when I've only joined today! Anyway, I'm new to all this, but it seems to me that the most important thing when it comes to canon information, is the show itself. Anything else - even deleted scenes - might be contradicted by the show at a later date. It's interesting information, but I don't personally consider it canon. But like has already been said, if the deleted scene doesn't contradict what has already been shown then I think most people would probably consider that canon. :Bluebellanon (talk) 00:32, November 6, 2012 (UTC) Markers with links to notes/speculation Somet things currently in stuff that is not a good citation can be moved to a "Notes" section. Here's what I would suggest as an example: Something from Downton Abbeya ...farther down near the end of the article... Notes * a Some note about above. In the article it would look like this: Something from Downton Abbeya . . . Notes * a Some note about above. The little a link should jump to the note. Asking if okay to remove bad reference/speculation/misleading : Hello, I hope it's okay to ask this, but why do we have to keep information in an article at all if it is a bad reference/speculation/misleading? Why can't we just remove it? Keeping it is inacurate and also it feels like pandering to one particular member which doesn't feel fair when no one else adds such material to articles (at least that I've seen). Bluebellanon (talk) 19:30, December 22, 2012 (UTC) ::I'd agree. Why bend over backwards to placate one specific contributor.CestWhat (talk) 21:53, December 22, 2012 (UTC) ::Oh, like you expect ME to do to YOU when you remove the information? Hmm? You hypocritical ass - you expect ME to bend over backwards to placate you. So, don't EVER, use that as a though. EVER! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:07, December 22, 2012 (UTC) :::Just me... http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Adminship?t=20121222040843#Oppose_HarryPotterRules1 CestWhat (talk) 23:01, December 22, 2012 (UTC) :::Nether of us are going to be admin, so don't stick that in my face. Trust me... it's not going to work! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:46, December 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::As I've said in other places, if the speculation has a legitimate basis, it should not be removed, but moved instead to a "Notes" or "Speculation" section. Also, I don't want to give blanket permission to remove anything as most times the issue is a case-by-case issue. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 26 Dec 2012 4:44 PM Pacific = Discuss the Downton Abbey Wiki:Canon information page = Discussion begun. I think the page should stay, as Jullian Fellowes is the highest form of canon, followed by the show and press packs - written by him - anbd books that have the foreword by him, as he endorses them. The cast interviews can be wrong - as seen by the one Jessica gave on Sybil's age (albiet, Jullian kept changing her age, but it was still wrong - unless they have no contradicitions, such as the Joanna Froggatt interview that states Anna was born in 1886 and played with Mary and the girls in the village. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:35, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Using specific examples (I thought I'd use different headings - then we can hopefully keep this discussion organised - people can add to whatever section they disagree/agree with). I'd prefer us not to use specific examples at all in this article and just use it to state which sources we accept as canon. Specific examples can be discussed elsewhere, I wouldn't want discussion of examples - such as the example that HPR1 added about the descent of the Earldom of Grantham or discussion of dates of marriages and birthdays - to overshadow the article or cloud the issue, since it's always possible that people might disagree with the example. Whilst if we just simply state that these are the sources we accept as canon - then it makes it much simpler in my opinion. So I think we should take out all the specific examples given. --bloob (talk) 12:44, June 4, 2013 (UTC) The Show itself should be the top tier If we're going to have different tiers of canon then the show itself has to be the top tier (and I'd separate it from press packs). Since we are after all a wiki about the show Downton Abbey and not a wiki about Julian Fellowes then the show itself should be the top tier - canon from the show should be taken as more important than anything else. In that tier I would include transcripts of the show and scripts - as long as we're not including any deleted scenes - only scripts and transcripts that strictly follow what was aired. --bloob (talk) 12:44, June 4, 2013 (UTC) While you are correct, Jullian Fellowes is the highest form of canon as he writes the show. As well as this, his comments are on the script pack for Series 1, stating why he wrote certain things, etc. It's like with J.K. Rowling - she couldn't fit in EVERYTHING (or stuff had to be deleted) so she revealed it later. He is the same - stuff he couldn't fit in, but is canon, or was deleted, that is revealed by him, is the highest tier of canon; it's Word of God, so that makes it the highest form bar none. Then, of course, comes the show.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:22, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Second tier I think that any information that comes from Julian Fellowes should be the second tier canon. Whilst he does write the show, he might change his mind or not be entirely truthful in interviews so as to keep the plot/endings a surprise so therefore I'd have any information that comes from him as a second tier, with the show itself as the final word. --bloob (talk) 12:44, June 4, 2013 (UTC) See my above point on last section. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:22, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Third Tier Any script releases that contain any deleted/unaired scenes I would place as Third Tier. --bloob (talk) 12:44, June 4, 2013 (UTC) I agree with this, except for the "deleted scenes" bit - some of the deleted scenes in the script set for Series 1, Jullian Fellowes confirmed by his comments, did occur, just offscreen. This includes the names of Isobel's father and brother. Jullian Fellowes confirms it is canon; the show just "skips" that bit and goes straight to the John Drake ill in bed bit. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:22, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Fourth Tier ITV website and press packs (I'd put these together since the ITV website releases the press packs). --bloob (talk) 12:44, June 4, 2013 (UTC) ITV gets their information from Jullian Fellowes - they could post ANYTHING otherwise - so this needs to be higher (second or third). Also, Series 1 backs up the Series 1 press packs; Violet says, in 1913, that Robert married Cora "24 years ago" - this matches the 1899 given in the press pack. As well as this, there is the mention in series 3 of Martha having lots of "tin" - Isidore was a dry goods merchant which involed tin. The press pack for Series 1 also confirms Cora's age, so should be higher.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:22, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Fifth Tier I'm reluctant to include information from cast interviews at all - how do we know where they're getting their information from? Are they just giving their own personal view of the character they play? If they are then their view is no more important than anyone elses - they don't write the show, and any view of theirs might be contradicted by the show at a later date. But if we have to include their opinion as canon, then I'd put them as fifth tier. But if everyone agrees, I'd rather us not include them at all. --bloob (talk) 12:44, June 4, 2013 (UTC) I think that this one, at least, may be right; only include these in the wiki after ''the show has finished, as there will be no new information to contrdict the interviews given. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:29, June 4, 2013 (UTC) : If the show had finished it wouldn't make this information any more valid. bloob (talk) 19:58, June 4, 2013 (UTC) : It would, actually, since there'd be no ''new ''information to contradict the interviews, so it'd be a higher form of canon rather than fifth thier. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:13, June 4, 2013 (UTC) ::: But the fact that the information would no longer be contradicted doesn't make it any more correct than it was before. bloob (talk) 21:38, June 4, 2013 (UTC) ::: No, no, you misunderstand. Things like Anna's birthdate (1886) came from a Joanne Froggatt interview; once the show is finished - if it has not been stated then there will not be a higher form of canon to contradict it, so it makes it a higher form of canon itself. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:49, June 6, 2013 (UTC) Inferred Information I wouldn't include information inferred from the show at all. If you have to infer something then it isn't canon. --bloob (talk) 12:44, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Really? We can infer Violet's birthdate - sometime after 1838 - from her words in the show; she says that "The bloom has almost gone off the rose" when referring to Mary being 22, meaning that Violet, who was married in 1860 would have to be born after 1838 (as 1838 would make her 22 and the bloom would almmost have gone off her too). This should, I think, be after the show, Jullian Fellowes, and press-packs.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:22, June 4, 2013 (UTC) : You've pretty much just made my point for me. That line of reasoning isn't sound at all. bloob (talk) 19:59, June 4, 2013 (UTC) : Actually, it is. Violet is, basically, saying that Mary is getting to old for marriage at 22; this means that she herself was married BEFORE 22 (and being married in 1860 makes her birthdate after 1838). See? Another inferred thing - which I have already ran past Fandyllic - is the birthdate of Sybbie. 23:04, June 4, 2013 (UTC)HarryPotterRules1 (talk) ::: Things that have a basis in fact and can be worked out from existing dates are very different from you deciding what it is that a character meant when they said something that involved no dates at all. bloob (talk) 14:14, June 5, 2013 (UTC) ::: Not entirely true; things can be inferred that ''are correct; they may not be outrightly stated but working it out can make it correct. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:50, June 6, 2013 (UTC) Okay, I've come up with a better reason for not including inferred information as a tier of it's own - inferred information is already there as it would have to have been inferred''' from''' some tier of canon information. So whether or not to accept infered information is in fact a seperate issue from this and should probably instead be decided on a case by case basis. Not including inferred information in these guidelines wouldn't be saying that this wiki doesn't accept inferred info at all - it's simply a different issue from this. Or at least, shouldn't be one of the tiers of canon information, it should have a section of it's own. blue (talk) 20:48, June 9, 2013 (UTC) That, I can agree with - include it, but take it from the canon bit and put it in a section of it's own to be tied with the canon stuff. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:48, June 13, 2013 (UTC) Non-Canon Information I'd remove the section titled "Non-Canon Information" entirely. The page should be self explanatory without this, I think it confuses things. The page should be just to state what we accept as canon sources and leave it at that. We don't need to go on to state what isn't canon. --bloob (talk) 12:47, June 4, 2013 (UTC) :One is that the show itself is inconsistent both between episodes and official material (Lang's first name being Andrew in the press material and then Henry in the closing credits) and even with the show itself (i.e. Sybil's age doesn't fit in every episode it's mentioned). This what the "Behind the Scenes" sections do well. It's nice to treat this show as if it's reality (Sybil's age must be consistent), but it isn't since it make continuity errors. :Also the "speculation" and "inferred" part ignored that isn't the what this Wiki is meant as well as ignoring that speculation only goes one way i.e. because Violet mocks women who end up in India when she visits Scotland, I'd infer that Great Aunt Roberta isn't her sister, but her sister-in-law. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE I'm not trying to make a case for the whole Great Aunt Roberta stuff again, just to show that speculation can go more then one way which is a problem. :What really needs to be address is how to resolve conflicts on information since I do think conflict can happen in good faith. It is solely the admin or a community consensus or whatever. CestWhat (talk) 18:27, June 4, 2013 (UTC) :Lang's name is Henry - show comes ABOVE press materials. Only Series 2 didn't fit in with her age - Series 1 stated she was having her season (a season occurs at the age of 17; this, plus her being the age of 24 in 5 1/2 years later fits with her death age). Roberta cannot be her sister-in-law for four reasons: *One: Robert has no aunts on his paternal side, or not alive ones, at least; he has his aunt, James's mother and that is it. *Two: Robert has to "discover" a great-aunt of Sybil, Edith and Mary who "married a Gordon in 1860" - meaning that this cannot be Roberta as he would know of any of his mother's siblings - and his father's too - because they'd be his aunts and uncles and their husbands and wives would be his aunts and uncles by marriage. *Three: If Roberta WAS ''Violet's sister-in-law - through a brother or sister of Violet - then she would ''NOT be a great-aunt of Mary, Sybil and Edith; she would be no relation to them except "grandmother's brother's wife's sister"or "grandmother's sister's husband's sister," thus by elimination she is Violet's sister and - possibly - Susan's mother. *Four: Violet mocks the country of India for being "too hot" and "dirty and smelly" and "having no-one to talk too for 100 square miles"; never once does she mock Susan - her goddaughter, who she is willing to do favours for by taking in Rose - or Roberta - her (probable) sister of whom she speaks fondly of - for going there. And, actually, you were trying to make the case for Roberta again. I have just proven you wrong... again. 19:16, June 4, 2013 (UTC)HarryPotterRules1 (talk) : How is any of the above relevant to my suggestion? (And I'm talking to both of you here) This discussion is about deciding what should be included on the Downton Abbey Wiki:Canon information page, not for rehashing old arguments or deciding if specific pieces of information are canon or not. We're discussing which SOURCES of information about the show should be taken as canon - nothing else. Please lets try not and get bogged down in old arguments. You've both been asked not to do this anymore by wikia staff. bloob (talk) 19:43, June 4, 2013 (UTC) : I, Bluebellanon, was ending the conversation here by proving how the press material stating Lang's name was wrong, how CestWhat originally changing the article of Roberta to say she WASN'T Violet's sister was wrong and non-canon. That, is why it's, albiet only distantly, relevant. Also, it makes me, clear as day, the winner in the arguments - as I was ''right from the start and knew it ''- and ends it totally. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:16, June 4, 2013 (UTC) :::Obviously I disagree, but I've been hold by User:Fandyllic a thousand and one time not to engage with User:HPR1 and so I won't on this. I wish I hadn't used Great Aunt Roberta as an example and just a new maybe-up one. I didn't want to rehash this again, but mentioned it only that speculation "Fifth Tier" or whatever shouldn't be on there. My point isn't to bring up old conflicts. It's just that one of the problems is that there isn't a way to resolve a conflict that a hierarchy of canon won't solve and I think that ought to be addressed. Also that canon seems to imply that this is reality rather then fiction that has inconsistencies. So (this is a totally made up example so it doesn't upset anybody) that Mrs. Hughes mentions she has a brother when in a previous episode Thomas said Mrs. Hughes just had one sister, the canon hierarchy stuff doesn't apply. CestWhat (talk) 21:13, June 4, 2013 (UTC) :::::We can't possibly predict every inconsistency that might occur and it's possible that inconsistencies will occur (and perhaps have occurred) that can't be settled one way or another. That's not the end of the world. It doesn't really matter if we can't settle things 100% one way or another. We can simply state in whatever article it is, that there is an inconsistency/contradiction in this case. To use your example we might say something like: "In episode ? Thomas says Mrs. Hughes only has one sister, however we later learn this is incorrect when Mrs Hughes herself mentions having a brother." :::::Perhaps we need a section added to the article on how we deal with inconsistencies/contradictions but I don't think we need this section on Non-Canon. bloob (talk) 21:49, June 4, 2013 (UTC) :::::Fine, we need a "possibly canon" section, or something like it - naturally, if BOTH CestWhat and I edit it there WILL be arguments. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:08, June 4, 2013 (UTC) :::::::I think a title such as "Inconsistencies and Contradictions" or "Dealing with Inconsistencies and Contradictions" would be more suitable, as I think that's clearer. --bloob (talk) 14:21, June 5, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::I agree. Just keep CestWhat out, as nothing will be decided with him there constantly attempting to contradict me when I am in the right.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:08, June 9, 2013 (UTC)